Trust Promoting Seals in Electronic Markets:
An Exploratory Study of Their Effectiveness for Online Sales Promotion
Xiaorui Hu
Zhangxi Lin
Han Zhang
ABSTRACT. In order to promote web sales, companies conducting electronic commerce are
constantly seeking viable and efficient ways to increase web traffic. One approach is to build
consumers’ trust, and ultimately to increase web sales. Many business-to-consumer online
merchants follow this approach and display trust-promoting seals on their websites. However,
whether these seals really fulfill the tasks they have promised has remained unexplored. This
study empirically examines the influence of trust-promoting seals on consumers’ online
purchasing decisions. The results show that the trust-promoting seals are generally effective in
promoting web sales, and some seals enhance promotion better than others.
KEYWORDS. Business-to-consumer (B2C) commerce, Elaboration Likelihood Model of
Persuasion (ELM), electronic commerce, electronic markets, Internet, online shopping, trust,
trust-promoting seals, trusted third parties (TTPs), web promotion, web sales, willingness to buy
(WTB).
Xiaorui Hu (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an Assistant Professor, Department of
Decision Sciences & MIS, John Cook School of Business, St. Louis University, DS413, 3674
Lindell Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63108 (E-mail: hux2@slu.edu; Phone: 314-977-3849; Fax: 314977-1483). Zhangxi Lin (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an Assistant Professor,
Department of ISQS, Texas Tech University, BA708, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101 (E-mail:
zlin@ba.ttu.edu; Phone: 806-742-1926; Fax: 806-742-3193). Han Zhang (PhD, University of
Texas at Austin) is an Assistant Professor, DuPree College of Management, Georgia Institute of
Technology, RM 329, 755 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 (E-mail:
han.zhang@mgt.gatech.edu; Phone: 404-894-4373; Fax: 404-894-6030).
INTRODUCTION
The rapid progress of Internet technology and the adequate development of effective and
secure real time electronic payment systems, provide business-to-consumer (B2C) commerce a
prosperous online business environment. This new electronic channel has promised to create a
“level playing field” for firms of all sizes (Watson et al., 1998). However, after years of practice,
online sales did not bring the expected profits for businesses, and a serious trust concern has
been identified which prevents consumers from shopping online (Kollock, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al.,
1
2000; Ba et al., 2000). Companies who have spent substantial amounts of money on building the
e-commerce infrastructure are constantly seeking effective means to promote web sales.
Basically, there are several ways to achieve the goal of web sale promotion. One is through
traditional channel, such as a television, newspaper or radio station, to broadcast the existence of
an online storefront. Another method is through modern channels, such as e-mail, link marketing
(banner ads and affiliated advertising) and search engine optimization, to advertise the existence
of a website. (See, for example, www.ambergreeninternetmarketing.com/). Both methods can
help increase a site’s popularity, and more website traffic is expected. The third method is
through price promotion. A website can always run a web special on some products, giving the
royal customers coupons or discounts, and referral fees and so on to promote sales (Kumar et al.,
1998; Anand et al., 1999).
However, these methods cannot solve consumers’ serious concern about online shopping:
how can I trust an online storefront? In this article, we examine another method for online sales
promotion, which aims at building consumers’ trust towards an Internet storefront and therefore
enhancing long-term online sales. These results can be achieved by building strong relationships
and trust between companies and their potential customers. We investigate a particular strategy
for promoting trust and web sales through the display of third party certified trust-promoting
seals on a website.
Building trust with potential customers is a crucial component for every business (Parkinson,
1975; Beltramini and Stafford, 1993). This is especially true for those small companies who are
new and unknown online merchants. According to the Internet Fraud Watch (www.fraud.org/),
the amount of money consumers are losing to Internet fraud is increasing. The average loss per
person rose from $310 in 1999 to $427 in 2000, and to $478 in the first ten months of 2001
2
(Internet Fraud Watch, 2001). The severity of Internet fraud suppresses consumers’ online
shopping and contributes to the failure of most of the DOT COM companies. Striving for their
survival and success, those DOT COMs utilize various means to promote consumers’ trust
towards their storefronts. Presently, one of the major strategies to promote trust is to display
trust-promoting seals on the websites. In this research, we refer to all the signs, logos, tags or
seals attached to an online storefront which aim to promote consumer’ trust as trust-promoting
seals. Unknown online stores attempt to use those trust-promoting seals provided by different
trusted third parties (TTPs) to assure consumers that they are also trustworthy online merchants.
Currently, seals such as Trust.e, VeriSign Secure Site, BizRate, BBBOnLine Reliability
Program, Gomez Certification and AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee are among the popular
services. However, whether all seals can positively influence consumer’s shopping intention and
contribute to the consumer’ willingness to buy is still unexplored. Crucial questions for all the
unknown online merchants who intend to display the seals are: Can the trust-promoting seals be
really effective on promoting web sales? Which trust-promoting seal might be the optimal choice
for their Websites in terms of the characteristics of the products they sell and the customers they
might have? We believe our findings to these questions can shed light on long-term web sale
promotion in electronic markets and will have strong practical implications for B2C electronic
commerce.
Trust has been treated as a critical factor in stimulating purchases over the Internet (Quelch
and Klein, 1996; Stewart, 1999; Kollock, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000). In this study, we define
trust as “a trustor’s expectations about the motives and behaviors of a trustee” (Doney and
Cannon, 1997, p. 37; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000, p. 45). This is consistent with the trust definition in
social psychology and industrial marketing research literature.
3
Five popular trust-promoting seals are fully investigated. We examine whether the seals have
different influences on promoting web sales among different product categories in e-markets.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Asymmetric information (Akerlof, 1970) is the benchmark characteristic of e-commerce,
meaning that online traders do not have the same information about the quality of the product,
the security of the transaction, and the trustworthiness of each other (Choi et al., 1997).
Consequently, fear of security breaches and distrust in the products and services offered online
become some of the major obstacles to the growth of electronic commerce, and serve as a
counter factor to promote web sales.
Conceptual Model
The notion of trust as a foundation for social interaction and social order spans various
research disciplines (Williamson, 1993; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Fukuyama, 1995). In research
on electronic commerce, trust has been recognized as a very important factor to facilitate online
transactions and promote online sales (e.g., Kollock, 1999; Stewart, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000;
Gefen, 2000; Kovar et al., 2000).
In current B2C electronic markets, various TTPs have occurred to provide trust-related
services. The TTPs include Trust.e (www.truste.com/), WebTrust (www.webtrust.org/), VeriSign
(www.verisign.com/),
(www.epubliceye.com/),
BizRate.com
BBBOnLine
(www.bizrate.com/),
(http://www.bbb.org/),
and
epubliceye.com
America
Online
(www.aol.com/), to name a few. These TTPs provide various click-to-verify seals that can be
displayed on B2C retailers’ websites.
The functionality of each representative seal we examine in the article is explained below.
Note that the five seals we study in this research may have some overlapping functions. For
4
example, the AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee seal also mentions secure transactions and
privacy protection. However, it amplifies its money-back guarantee function. In this research,
therefore, we study the core functions of the five trust-promoting seals.
Table 1
Seal Functions, Representative Seals and Storefronts with Seals
Seal Functions
Representative Seals
Storefronts with Seal
Protecting Privacy
Trust.e
www.drugstore.com
Providing Security
VeriSign Secure Site (VeriSign)
www.babyuniverse.com
Demonstrating
BizRate.com (BizRate)
www.eastbay.com
Consumer Satisfaction
Providing Reliability
BBBOnLine Reliability Program
www.footlocker.com
(BBBOnLine))
Providing Assurance or AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee
www.bridalpeople.com
Guarantee
(AOL)
The Trust.e seal seeks to promote consumers’ trust from the aspect of protecting consumers’
privacy. “Trust.e is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to build users’ trust
and confidence in the Internet by promoting the use of fair information practices” (directly
quoted from the disclosure of a click-to-verify Trust.e seal). If a website has a Trust.e seal, that
website has agreed to disclose its information practices and have its privacy practices reviewed
for compliance by Trust.e.
The VeriSign seal aims to promote consumers’ trust from the aspect of providing a VeriSign
secure site for online transactions. The click-to-verify VeriSign seal indicates “You may submit
sensitive data (e.g., credit card numbers) to this site with the assurance that: This site has a
VeriSign Secure Server ID. VeriSign has verified the organizational name and that [company]
has the proof of right to use it. All information sent to this site, if in an SSL session, is encrypted,
protecting against disclosure to third parties.”
The BizRate seal seeks to provide consumers’ trust from the aspect of demonstrating the
online store’s overall rating and the information of consumers’ satisfaction. “The store rating is
5
the average of all ten quality ratings displayed below. These ratings are taken from surveys of
actual customers and are updated weekly” (directly quoted from the disclosure of a click-toverify BizRate seal). The ten quality ratings include ease of ordering, product selection, product
information, price, website performance, on-time delivery, product met expectation, customer
support, order tracking, shipping and handling.
The BBBOnLine Reliability Program seal works on providing trust from the aspect of
“helping Web users find reliable, trustworthy businesses online” (directly quoted from the
website of Better Business Bureau at http://www.bbbonline.org/reliability/index.asp). From the
same website, we can also get the following quotation: “Websites carrying the BBBOnLine
Reliability seal are all members of their local Better Business Bureau, have been in business for
at least one year, have agreed to abide by BBB standards of truth in advertising, and have
committed to work with the BBB to resolve consumer disputes that arise over goods or services
promoted or advertised on their site.” If an online store displays the BBB OnLine seal that means
the firm “meets all BBBOnLine Reliability participation and Better Business Bureau
membership standards and is authorized to display the BBBOnLine Reliability seal” (directly
quoted from the disclosure of a click-to-verify BBBOnLine Reliability seal).
The AOL Certificate Merchant Guarantee seal attempts to provide trust from the aspect of
offering a total satisfaction money-back guarantee: “All AOL Certified Merchants offer return
policies are backed up by AOL’s money-back guarantee…. Should any AOL Certified Merchant
not comply with its return policy as stated in the merchant’s Customer Service area, the AOL
will provide you a refund for the full purchase price” (directly quoted from AOL’s website at
http://www.aol.com/amc/total_satisfaction.html).
6
Based on exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), balance theory (Heider, 1958) as well
as the theories of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and planned behavior (Ajzen,
1985, 1991), Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) designed a research model focusing on the antecedents and
consequences of consumer trust in an Internet store. According to Jarvenpaa et al.’s model, we
propose in our model (Figure 1) that displaying various trust-promoting seals can affect
consumers’ trust towards the online store. This can further influence consumers’ attitudes toward
the store, enhance their Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (ELM), and eventually
promote web sales.
Figure 1
The Research Model
Trust.e
VeriSign
Trust
Seals
BizRate
Consumer
Trust
Consumer
Attitude
Consumer
WTB
BBBOnline
AOL
Hypothesis Development: Trust-Promoting Seals
Using trust-promoting seals to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions is supported by
Petty and Cacioppo (1986)’s Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (ELM). ELM states
that the effect of a persuasive communication on consumers’ expectations is determined by the
degree to which consumers consider the information provided in the persuasive communication.
In this research, we examine whether displaying a trust-promoting seal on a storefront can
enhance consumers’ WTB, which contributes to web sales. We have the following hypotheses:
7
H1: Displaying the Trust.e seal on an online storefront will positively influence its
consumers’ willingness to buy.
H2: Displaying the VeriSign seal on an online storefront will positively influence its
consumers’ willingness to buy.
H3: Displaying the BizRate seal on an online storefront will positively influence its
consumers’ willingness to buy.
H4: Displaying the BBBOnLine seal on an online storefront will positively influence its
consumers’ willingness to buy.
H5: Displaying the AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee seal on an online storefront will
positively influence its consumers’ willingness to buy.
Commodity Product and “Look and Feel” Product
Product characteristics are important factors in consumers’ abilities to ascertain the quality of
products online, which might consequently affect their shopping decisions. According to
traditional economics research, products have been categorized as “search products,”
“experience products” (Nelson, 1970), and “credence products” (Darby and Karni, 1973). For
search products, the quality of the product can be ascertained by consumers before purchase. For
experience products, the quality of the products (e.g., the taste of canned food) is learned after
the product is bought. However, most products in electronic markets cannot be classified into
these categories.
De Figueiredo (2000) develops an e-commerce product continuum in which he characterizes
products into commodity products (e.g., oil, paper clips), quasi-commodity products (e.g., books,
CDs, videos), “look and feel” products (e.g., suits, homes), and “look and feel” products with
variable quality (e.g., art). Quality is easiest to judge on the web for commodity products but
8
most difficult for “look and feel” products with variable quality. In the research, following De
Figueiredo (2000)’s analysis, we combine commodity products and quasi-commodity products
and call it online commodity products. Likewise, we combine “look and feel” products and “look
and feel” products with variable quality into online “look and feel” products.
For online commodity products, consumers can be certain about quality. For example, if a
consumer decides to buy a book, the quality of the book from any online bookstore is the same.
However, with regard to product quality, ceteris paribus, online “look and feel” products incur a
higher level of uncertainty. Their quality is very difficult to assess from afar since consumers
need to actually observe, touch, feel, or even try on these products in person. Thus, although a
trust promoting seals’ assurance of an online store’s trustworthiness might somehow enhance
consumers’ purchasing intentions, it cannot completely ease severe quality concerns.
H6: A trust-promoting seal can positively influence consumers’ willingness to buy online
commodity products.
H7: A trust-promoting seal can positively influence consumers’ willingness to buy online
“look and feel” products.
H8: A trust-promoting seal can be more effective in promoting consumers’ willingness to
buy for “look and feel” products than for the “commodity” products.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects in this research were 120 undergraduate students enrolled in two information
systems courses from an American university. According to the OECD report (1998) and
Kotkin’s research (1998), online consumers are generally younger and more highly educated
than are conventional consumers, thus college students as subjects in our research are basically
9
consistent with online consuming demographics. The demographic profile of the subjects and the
Internet shopping experience are summarized in Table 2 and 3. It is worth noting that 64.2% of
the subjects had prior online shopping experience, and the self-evaluated Internet skill on
average is “good plus.”
Table 2
Survey Demographic Description
Variable
Sex
Age
Grade
Value
Male
Female
Less than 20
21-25
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Percentage %
53.3%
46.7%
60%
40%
40.8%
16.7%
10.8%
31.7%
Table 3
Internet Skill and Shopping Experience Description
Variable
Net surfing age
Self-evaluated Internet
Skill
Internet shopper
Category
Less than1 yr
1~2 Years
2~3 Years
3~4 Years
4~5 Years
More than 5 yrs
Very Good
Good
Poor
Very Poor
Yes
No
Count
1
4
4
19
30
62
41
76
2
1
77
43
Average
4.5 Years
Average is good+
64.2% Yes
Products
A total of four types of products are surveyed in this research. According to the analysis in
Section 2, we chose a textbook and a printer as online commodity products, and a pair of shoes
and a leather sofa as online “look and feel” products.
10
Procedures
Two rounds of questionnaires were used in this study. In the first round, subjects’ WTBs
from online storefronts are investigated without mentioning or posting a trust-promoting seal.
The first questionnaire consisted of four parts: 1) basic information about Internet and online
shopping experiences (as shown in Table 1), 2) four questions about online shopping from
completely unknown online stores, 3) questions regarding subjects’ familiarity with trustpromoting seals (as shown in Table 4), and 4) demographic information (as shown in Table 2).
We will refer to this questionnaire as “the benchmark case” in the rest of the article.
After the subjects finished the first questionnaire, we collected the data and immediately gave
the same subjects a second questionnaire where a trust-promoting seal was added on the
unknown store’s website. The subjects were asked if they would now buy the product. We refer
to the second questionnaire as “with seal case.”
Prior studies commonly use actual or fake online storefronts in their experiments since some
Internet-related features needed to be tested (e.g., Stewart, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Kovar et
al., 2000). In our research, however, we attempt to test very specific features without the
necessity of the online feature: a completely unknown store combined with different popular
trust-promoting seals. Consequently, we did not use an actual or a fake online storefront. In
addition, an extra reference information sheet is distributed to all subjects which explains all the
trust-promoting seals in detail, their purposes, standards, histories and operation institutions, etc.
RESULTS
Benchmark Case
In the benchmark case, it was assumed that subjects must buy a book, a printer, a pair of
shoes and a leather sofa, and that the same products are found in a local physical store with a
11
certain price. Then the subjects were asked whether they would buy these products from a
completely unknown online store (without mentioning a trust-promoting seal) with a cheaper
price (10% cheaper). Usually, online retailers will offer a cheaper price to attract customers due
to the lower overhead cost, etc. In addition, online transactions are not often subject to sales
taxes, which in turn relatively lower the online price even further. Table 4 shows that, even
though the online prices were 10% cheaper, more than 75% of the subjects hesitated to purchase
online. For the online “look and feel” products, the percentage of willingness to buy is generally
lower than that of the commodity products.
Table 4
Benchmark Case: Online Purchasing Activity
Book
Printer
Shoes
Sofa
Purchasing %
20.29%
24.64%
17.39%
13.04%
Standard Deviation
40.51%
43.41%
38.18%
33.92%
With Seal Case
After completing the first questionnaire, the same subjects were given the second
questionnaire. They were asked whether they would buy the products from a completely
unknown online store with a trust-promoting seal on its website with the same cheaper price
(10% cheaper) than that of the local physical store.
Table 5 provides the results of the comparison between the WTB under the “with seal case”
and the benchmark case. The WTB in this table is the total WTB for all four types of products.
For example, the WTB under Trust.e seal is calculated as the summation of the WTB with
Trust.e seal for the book, printer, shoes and sofa. Then the summation of the WTB data is
divided by four. We test whether the difference between the “benchmark case” and the “with seal
case” is significant. Justification of the actual weight of online transactions on each category is
12
omitted due to two reasons. First, it is hard to get a close calibration for those actual weights
among product categories. Second, in the real world, the volume of books and printers traded
online is higher than that of shoes and sofas. Therefore, if given equal weight we can prove the
effectiveness of the seals, and then under the actual unequal weight, they will still hold.
Table 5
Comparison Between With Seal Case and Benchmark Case
Seals
Trust.e
VeriSign
BizRate
BBBOnline
AOL
With Seal Case
Purchasing %
24.64%
28.26%
22.10%
35.87%
47.10%
** p < 0.01
Benchmark Case
Purchasing %
18.84%
18.84%
18.84%
18.84%
18.84%
T-Value
1.43
2.22*
0.83
3.63**
5.18**
Hypothesis Testing
H1 Not Supported
H2 Supported
H3 Not Supported
H4 Supported
H5 Supported
* p<0.05
Among the five seals, BBBOnLine and AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee are the most
significant trust-promoting seals for enhancing consumers’ WTB, and potentially raising web
sales (p<0.01). VeriSign follows. Trust.e and BizRate are not statistically significant in
promoting purchasing intentions (p < 0.05). If we analyze the functionalities and services
provided by Trust.e and BizRate, we may understand the results better.
The Trust.e seal’s major functionality is to ensure the integrity and security of consumers’
privacy. A website that has a Trust.e seal only ensures that the site follows the legal practices of
protecting consumers’ privacy, but does not ensure that the business is trustworthy.
The BizRate provides real customer evaluations about an online storefront regarding the
following ten aspects: ease of ordering, product selection, product information, price, website
performance, on-time delivery, product met expectation, customer support, order tracking,
shipping and handling. Although these factors are important for consumers’ purchasing decisions
when shopping online, it seems that none of them can solve consumers’ major concerns about
trust.
13
Effect Under Product Category
Other interesting issues are whether the trust-promoting seals are effective on both product
categories, and whether they have a more significant effect on one category over the other.
Including in the commodity product category are books and printers, while shoes and sofas
belong to the “look and feel” product category. The different characteristics that reside in the
different product categories might yield different results for the tests. Table 6 records the
comparison results.
Table 6
Two Cases Comparison Under Two Product Categories
Seals
Trust.e
Categories
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
VeriSign
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
BizRate
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
BBBOnLine Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
AOL
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
With Seal Case Benchmark Case
33.33%
22.46%
15.94%
15.22%
34.06%
22.46%
22.46%
15.22%
27.54%
22.46%
16.67%
15.22%
42.75%
22.46%
28.99%
15.22%
53.62%
22.46%
40.58%
15.22%
T-Value
2.07*
0.15
2.12*
1.43
0.99
0.30
3.65**
2.57*
5.54**
4.64**
Hypothesis Testing
H6 Supported
H7 Not Supported
H6 Supported
H7 Not Supported
H6 Not Supported
H7 Not Supported
H6 Supported
H7 Supported
H6 Supported
H7 Supported
** p < 0.01 * p <0.5
Although the seals VeriSign, BBBOnLine and AOL significantly enhance consumers’ WTB
on the aggregated level (Table 5), their effects on each product category may not necessarily be
significant. According to Table 6, the significant enhancements on WTB on both product
categories are observed under the BBBOnLine and AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee seals.
Trust.e and VeriSign contribute to the increase of consumers’ WTB for both product categories,
but the effect is only significant at the commodity product category. The effects on “look and
feel” products for both Trust.e and VeriSign are insignificant (p<0.05). Although VeriSign is
significant at the aggregated level (Table 5), its effect on commodity products is short on
significance. BizRate’s effect on promoting the WTBs is not significant on both categories.
14
Next, we test whether the trust-promoting seal’s effect on two product categories are
significantly different (See Table 7). In other words, we examine whether the trust-promoting
seals are better at enhancing the WTB for one type of product over the other.
Table 7
Trust Promoting Seal’s Effect Comparison Across Product Categories
Seals
Trust.e
Category
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
VeriSign
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
BizRate
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
BBBOnline Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
AOL
Book/Printer
Shoes/Sofa
Purchasing
Enhancement
21.74%
1.45%
23.19%
14.49%
10.14%
2.90%
40.58%
27.54%
62.32%
50.72%
T-Value
1.81
Hypothesis H9
Not Supported
0.59
Not Supported
0.54
Not Supported
0.81
Not Supported
0.70
Not Supported
The purchasing enhancement variable in Table 7 is calculated by subtracting the WTB under
the benchmark case from the WTB under the “with seal case.” Therefore, the purchasing
enhancement variable records the contributions to the consumers’ WTB for each trust-promoting
seal. According to Table 7, every trust-promoting seal is better at enhancing the WTB for
commodity products than for “look and feel” products. However, none of the differences are
statistically significant (p<0.05).
Ranking of Trust-Promoting Seals
Up until now, we have investigated each trust-promoting seal’s effectiveness on promoting
web sales. By using the statistics demonstrated above, we generate Table 8. Our results suggest
that AOL is the most effective trust-promoting seal for enhancing online sales. The reason AOL
is the No.1 seal might result from its core functionalities: providing insurance and a guarantee.
15
Table 8
Trust Promoting Seals Rating
Trust-Promoting Seals
AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee
BBBOnLine Reliability Program
VeriSign
Trust.e
BizRate
Rating
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This research has investigated the effectiveness of trust-promoting seals on web sale
promotion by applying an experimental approach. Trust.e, VeriSign, BizRate, BBBOnLine and
AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee are selected due to their popularity on electronic market
practice.
A series of surveys have been conducted to examine whether displaying a trust-promoting
seal on a storefront can raise web sales, and whether the influence of trust-promoting seals are
the same across different types of products. It is a concurrence that trust is critical for the success
of online retailers. Online retailers, especially those with less established reputations, have been
displaying various trust-promoting seals on their storefronts, intending to promote trust and
enhance sales. Currently, some seals (e.g., Trust.e, BizRate) may be very popular in e-markets,
but our results demonstrate that they cannot significantly enhance web sales.
The results of this study indicate that among all the trust-promoting seals, only the seals that
deal with insurance or guarantee, (AOL Certified Merchant Guarantee, ranked first), security
(VeriSign ranked second) and reliability (BBBOnLine Reliability Program, ranked third)
significantly influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. In addition, this research demonstrates
that the average purchasing activities are generally higher for commodity products than for “look
and feel” products under both the “benchmark case” and “with seal cases.” These results provide
16
some insight for online retailers to determine what type of product they will sell online and for
what type of seals they should display on their storefronts to promote web sales.
This study is one of the first to address the effect of trust-promoting seals on promoting web
sales. It inevitably suffers from the common problems of exploratory studies. First, due to the
length constraint of the survey, the study is restricted to four types of products. Second, the
subjects in this research did not have a financial stake in their purchasing activity since they were
asked to imagine purchasing a product rather than really purchasing the product. Third, although
the student subjects are basically consistent with online consuming demographics (OECD, 1998;
Kotkin, 1998), they still cannot accurately represent the whole population of online shoppers.
Therefore, the limitations may influence the generalization of the research’s results.
When online retailers determine whether or not to display a seal, a cost-benefit analysis must
be conducted to evaluate how much value a trust-promoting seal might bring to their websites,
and how much they need to pay for displaying the seal. (BizRate currently is the only seal to be
displayed for free).
Moreover, future research on trust-promoting seals needs to address the effects of combining
different seals on the same website. If online merchants choose to combine trust-promoting seals
on their storefronts, what is the best combination? Will there be some complementary or
substitution effect among the trust-promoting seals? Finally, the crucial question of how much a
trust-promoting seal is worth to an online storefront needs to be explored in future research.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J.
Beckmann (Eds.). Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer Verlag, pp. 11-39.
17
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488-500.
Anand, Rangachari; Kumar, Manoj; and Jhingran, Anant (1999, July). Distributing e-coupons on
the
Internet.
Proceedings
of
INET.
Available
online
at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/inet/99/proceedings/1d/1d_1.htm.
Ba, Sulin; Whinston, Andrew B.; and Zhang, Han (2000). The dynamics of the electronic
market: An evolutionary game approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(1), 31-40.
Beltramini, R. F., and Stafford, E. R. (1993). Comprehension and perceived believability of seals
of approval information in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 3-31.
Choi, S. Y.; Stahl, D. O.; and Whinston, A. B. (1997). The Economics of Electronic Commerce.
Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
Darby, M., and Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of
Law and Economics, 16, 67-88.
De Figueiredo, J. (2000, Summer). Finding sustainable profitability in electronic commerce.
Sloan Management Review, 41-52.
Doney, P. M., and Cannon, J. P. (1997, April). An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 35-51.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free
Press.
18
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega: The International
Journal of Management Science, 28, 725-737.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Internet Fraud Watch (2001). Available at www.fraud.org/internet/intset.htm.
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L.; Tractinsky, Noam; and Vitale, Michael (2000). Consumer trust in an
Internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1(1-2), 45-71.
Kollock, P. (1999). The production of trust in online markets. In E. J. Lawler, M. Macy, S.
Thyne, and H. A. Walker (Eds.). Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 16. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, pp. 99-123.
Kotkin, J. (1998, April). The mother of all malls. Forbes, 60-65.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 7th
edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kovar, Stacy E.; Burke, Kimberly G.; and Kovar, Brian R. (2000, Spring). Consumer responses
to the CPA WEBTRUST assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 17-35.
Kumar, Manoj; Anand, Rangachari; Jhingran, Anant; and Mohan, Rakesh (1998, November).
Sales promotions on the Internet. Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on E-commerce,
Boston. Available online at http://www.research.ibm.com/iac/papers/coupon_fp.pdf and
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/ec98/full_papers/kumar_promotions/
kumar_html/kumar.html.
Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994, August). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 20-38.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 311329.
19
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1998). The Economic and
Social
Impact
of
Electronic
Commerce.
Available
online
at
www.oecd.org/subject/e_commerce/summary.htm.
Parkinson, T. L. (1975, Summer). The role of seals and certifications of approval in consumer
decision-making. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 9, 1-14.
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
Quelch, J. A., and Klein, L. R. (1996, Spring). The Internet and international marketing. Sloan
Management Review, 60-75.
Stewart, Katherine J. (1999, December). Transference as a means of building trust in World
Wide Web Sites. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), Charlotte, North Carolina.
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
Watson, R. T.; Akselsen, S.; and Pitt, L. F. (1998, Winter). Attractors: Building mountains in the
flat landscape of the World Wide Web. California Management Review, 40(2), 36-56.
Williamson, O. E. (1993, April). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of
Law and Economics, 36(1-2), 453-486.
20